The SitePoint Forums have moved.

You can now find them here.
This forum is now closed to new posts, but you can browse existing content.
You can find out more information about the move and how to open a new account (if necessary) here.
If you get stuck you can get support by emailing forums@sitepoint.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

The big thing for me was how nicely I could use the fact that there are very few widths or heights set, all the dimensions just cascade out from the text in the link, which gets round the text resize problem.

Trevor

Last edited by ClevaTreva; May 19, 2004 at 03:02.

"Good artists copy, great artists steal."- Pablo PicassoThe image of ClevaTreva is drawn by Rhys, and is a GOOD likeness

Are there any advantages to use <dl> instead of <ul> for link lists that I'm not awear of ?

With a definition list (dl) you get a parent child relation ship between the title (dt) and the data (dd). This is a back-to-front way of looking at headers.

You might make the title an <h4> or something, and then have the contents in a <p>. Here, the header is "the most important" part.

In our menu, the title, "links", isn't as important as the links themselves. This means that we could describe the links as "defining" the title, in which case the definition list structure would make the most sense.

The HTML alos looks better, because the titles are inside the same containing element:

I'm not going to argue the semantics but typically each <dt> should be paired with an <dd>. It's nearly as bad as 'Listitis' where the headers endup within lists obviously XHTML 2.0 is leaning towards <nl>.

Semantics...

Although the W3C is less then clear about this, the specification does suggest that there's nothing against pairing one or more dt's with one or more dd's. You could argue however that since a dd can contain block level elements, a number of paragraphs could be a more appropriate way of structuring a multi-part description/definition.

obviously XHTML 2.0 is leaning towards

Eh? Can you point me in the direction of the spec that leads you to assume that? I sort of got lost - again... - on the W3C site trying to find drafts of XHTML 2.0.

Navigation lists... sigh...

Robert,

Thanks for the link; I can't believe I couldn't find it. You're referring to the navigation lists, right? I see possibilities in that, although I have my doubts about the label; I would make it optional, and include it for the other list types as well.